Guest Post: Lettie Conrad on Metadata Promiscuity and the Researcher Experience
The pathways into academic material are diverse and the researcher experiences (RX) are quite variable. How can a publisher best open up its content for discovery?
The pathways into academic material are diverse and the researcher experiences (RX) are quite variable. How can a publisher best open up its content for discovery?
The university press world is ruminating on its relevance in a broader community that does not always show strong report for press activity. Different presses have identified a number of approaches to the problem of increasing relevance.
Smaller independent and society publishers are finding it increasingly difficult to compete with the economies of scale around production, technology, and (most important) institutional sales that can be brought to bear by a large publisher. If you are a society that has been self-publishing for many decades, such effects may appear as only a recent headwind in a long publishing tradition. This headwind, however, is most likely not a temporary zephyr but rather a permanent fixture of the STM and scholarly publishing landscape, and one that will only increase in intensity. To understand why, it is helpful to look at the two vectors on which scale operates in STM and scholarly publishing: horizontal and vertical. While horizontal scale has long been the province of commercial publishers, society publishers are typically organized to take advantage of vertical scale. The headwinds are presently blowing along the horizontal plane, from the perspective of the society publisher.
Michael Clarke looks at some of the growth avenues in scholarly communications.
When we talk about impact and metrics and understanding the customer, we are actually talking about surveillance data. We should have an open debate about what this means.
Scholarly publishing is virtually unique in that it has significant representation by both for-profit and not-for-profit publishers. This alters the very nature of this segment of publishing, making the not-for-profits more business-like and forcing the for-profits to behave at times like mission-based organizations.
Submitting articles for publication is a nightmare–there’s a plethora of platforms and interfaces, and they all seem to be awful. Can anything be done?
Rick Anderson interviews Deni Auclair, VP and Lead Analyst for Outsell Inc., about the recently published report “Open Access 2015: Market Size, Share, Forecast, and Trends.”
The designer behind the iPod talks about ways to see your product in a new light.
Last week was the Society for Scholarly Publishing Annual Meeting in Arlington. The Scholarly Kitchen Chefs talk about what they learned at the meeting and how it impacted them.
Digital media enables us to collect a huge amount of end-user data, far more than we could gather for print publishing. This presentation summarizes the way that data can be used to foster growth and concludes that end-user data is likely to require the creation of a new class of products.
The review article follows narrative conventions similar to other journal articles limiting its value in many types of discovery processes. Could the review article’s organization and analysis of the field be used to improve discovery in other types of research workflows?
There are countless proposals for a new “system” for scholarly communications, but such plans are typically top-down and overlook all the creative initiatives by individuals working independently.
What is text mining? The CCC’s Roy Kaufman offers a primer for publishers.
Should the fast and loose rules of startup company business models and the spin-oriented language of advertising be given free rein in the scholarly community?